CONTESTED-ELECTION  CASE 

OF 

RINAKER  vs.  DOWNING-. 


SPEECH 


OF 


OF  ILLINOIS, 


IN  THE 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday,  May  13,  1890. 


WAS]  T I NGTON. 
1896. 


T 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  JAMES  A.  CONNOLLY. 


The  House  having  under  consideration  the  contested-election  case  of 
Rinaker  vs.  Downing,  from  the  Sixteenth  Congressional  district  of  Illinois — 

Mr.  CONNOLLY  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  wish  that  this  contested-election  case  was  not 
pending  before  this  House.  Both  these  gentlemen,  the  contestant 
and  the  contestee,  are  my  personal  friends.  Each  one  of  them  lives 
in  a  county  adjoining  the  one  in  which  I  live.  I  practice  law  in 
the  courts  of  their  county;  I  know  their  people;  I  know  these  men, 
their  character;  they  are  my  neighbors  at  home,  and  I  would  most 
gladly  avoid  taking  any  part  in  the  controversy  between  these  two 
gentlemen. 

When  I  found  that  this  contest  was  bound  to  come  up  here  I 
made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  cast  no  vote  and  take  no  part  in 
it  until  I  had  carefully  read  every  word  of  the  evidence  given  by 
every  witn °ss,  both  for  the  contestant  and  contestee.  I  have  done 
so;  every  word  of  it.  And  I  am  now  ready  to  cast  my  vote,  which¬ 
ever  way  it  must  be  cast,  against  a  personal  friend.  It  is  not  a 
pleasant  duty.  I  do  not  voluntarily  seek  this  opportunity  on  the 
floor  to  show  the  reason  why  I  am  sure  my  vote  will  be  right.  I 
have  been  invited  and  urged  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  House  of  Represent¬ 
atives  is  the  judge  of  the  election  and  qualifications  of  its  own 
members.  It  is  without  question  that  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives  has  the  right  to  make  rules  for  the  determination  of  ques¬ 
tions  as  to  the  election  and  the  eligibility  of  its  members.  It  may 
make  those  rules  to-day.  It  may  reverse  those  rules  to-morrow. 
We  are  a  law  unto  ourselves  within  this  Chamber,  as  to  our  mode 
of  proceeding,  to  determine  whether  a  man  is  entitled  to  a  seat  in 
this  House  or  not.  But  we  all  recognize  that  however  often  we 
may  change  these  rules  we  still  must  always  do  it  in  a  spirit  of 
fairness  to  all  persons  who  may  be  interested  in  the  rule  or  in  its 
change. 

The  act  passed  by  Congress  is  not  a  rule  of  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives.  It  is  not  binding  upon  this  House,  I  concede;  but  it 
is  binding  upon  every  man  who  seeks  a  seat  in  this  House.  Gen¬ 
eral  Rinaker  was  bound  by  that  law  that  Congress  passed.  Finis 
E.  Downing  was  bound  by  the  law  that  Congress  passed.  They 
were  bound.  This  House  is  not  bound.  Now,  what  obligation 
did  that  law  impose  upon  General  Rinaker  and  upon  Mr.  Down¬ 
ing?  What  obligations  were  imposed  upon  General  Rinaker  by 
the  law.  and  not  only  upon  him,  but  upon  every  citizen  who  shall 
contest  the  right  of  anyone  else  to  a  seat  in  this  House?  The  law 
2400  3 


4 


imposed  upon  him  the  right  that  he  should,  within  thirty  days 
after  the  result  of  the  election  was  declared,  serve  a  written  notice 
upon  the  one  who  had  the  seat  that  he  claimed,  and  in  that 
notice  advise  him  of  the  ground  upon  which  he  contested  his  elec¬ 
tion,  Then,  that  law  which  bound  Rinaker  also  bound  Downing, 
within  thirty  days  after  that  date,  to  file  his  answer  and  to  deliver 
a  copy  to  General  Rinaker,  making  his  reply  to  the  charges  that 
Rinaker  had  made  against  him.  Then  that  law  said  to  General 
Rinaker:  “  Within  forty  days  after  Downing  serves  that  answer 
on  you  and  the  issue  is  made  up  you  must  take  all  your  evidence.” 

What  would  be  the  result  if  General  Rinaker  allowed  the  forty 
days  to  elapse  without  taking  any  evidence?  His  contest  would 
be  at  an  end.  He  would  have  failed  to  do  that  which  the  law 
plainly  imposed  upon  him  as  a  duty.  Hence,  under  the  law,  he 
could  no  further  be  heard  as  a  contestant  in  this  House. 

What  further  did  that  law  impose  upon  Downing?  After  the 
lapse  of  Rinaker’s  forty  days,  when  all  his  evidence  in  chief  must 
be  in  and  scrutinized  by  Downing,  Downing  must  then,  within 
the  next  forty  days,  take,  on  notice  to  Rinaker,  all  the  evidence 
he  proposes  to  offer  to  this  House  in  support  of  the  seat  that  he 
holds,  and  in  answer  to  Rinaker 's  attack  upon  his  right  to  that 
seat.  Then  what  does  the  law  impose  upon  Rinaker?  “In  ten 
days  after  the  expiration  of  Downing’s  forty  days,  you  are  re¬ 
quired  to  file  your  evidence  in  reply  to  the  evidence  taken  by 
Downing  and  then  not  only  is  the  issue  made  up,  but  the  evi¬ 
dence  is  all  in  and  the  case  is  prepared  for  the  court  of  last  resort. 

The  record  is  as  complete  as  is  a  record  from  a  nisi  prius  court 
to  the  court  of  appeals,  when  it  is  all  made  up  and  signed  by  the 
judge,  and  sealed  by  the  clerk  and  filed  in  the  office  of  the  appel¬ 
late  court.  There  is  the  end  of  making  further  record  in  that 
case.  That  is  the  law.  We  are  not  bound  by  it  in  the  House  as 
a  House.  We  can  do  as  we  please.  We  have  the  power. 

Oh,  it  is  excellent 

To  have  a  giant's  strength;  but  it  is  tyrannous 

To  use  it  like  a  giant. 

This  law,  that  is  put  there  not  only  to  notify  contestants  for 
seats,  but  to  notify  the  individual  voter  as  well,  passed  by  the  Sen¬ 
ate  and  House  and  approved  by  the  President,  should  not  be 
ignored  by  us.  We  who  are  here  to%upliold  the  majesty  of  the 
law  should  not  ignore  that  law.  Remember,  then,  that  Rinaker 
was  bound  by  the  law  as  written,  and  so  was  Downing. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been  somewhat  entertained  by  the 
language  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Bartlett]  on  yes¬ 
terday,  and  also  by  the  language  of  the  gentleman  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  [Mr.  Moody]  ,  when  they  portrayed  to  this  House  that  x 

here  finally  was  a  case  in  which  all  men  connected  with  it  had 
acted  honestly  and  fairly — a  case  in  which  all  the  parties  had 
sought  to  follow  the  law — and  that  fraud  had  never  obtruded  its 
hydra  head  into  the  record  of  this  case. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  beg  leave,  from  an  intimate  knowledge  of  all  the  f 

surroundings  of  this  case  and  of  the  district,  to  dissent  most  pos¬ 
itively  and  decidedly  from  the  statement  that  no  fraud  has  inter¬ 
posed.  It  may  not  be  a  legal  fraud,  but  it  is  a  fraud  that  honest 
men  regard  quite  as  much  as  they  do  legal  fraud.  It  is  a  moral 
fraud.  It  is,  by  political  chicanery  and  trickery,  an  attempt,  by  a 
new  device,  to  hold  a  man  in  his  seat  in  this  House  for  the  entire 
term  for  which  that  seat  might  be  held - 

Mr.  BARTLETT  of  Georgia.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a  ques- 

2400 


5 


tion?  I  stated  on  yesterday,  and  if  I  was  to  be  corrected  I  called 
on  m37  colleague  on  the  committee  [Mr.  Cooke  of  Illinois]  to  cor¬ 
rect  me,  that  there  was  not  a  charge  in  this  record,  nor  was  there 
a  sentence  of  evidence  in  it,  which  in  any  way  attacked  or  im¬ 
pugned  the  honesty  and  integrity  of  the  election  officials  who  held 
this  election;  and  now  that  that  has  been  contradicted  and  dis¬ 
sented  from,  I  call  upon  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Con¬ 
nolly]  who  now  has  the  floor,  I  call  upon  any  man  who  is  famil¬ 
iar  with  this  record,  to  name  the  allegation,  to  name  the  witness, 
or  to  cite  the  evidence. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Well,  now,  if  the  gentleman  had  possessed 
his  soul  in  patience  for  a  few  minutes  I  was  coming  right  to  that 
very  thing.  I  trust  he  will  possess  it  now,  until  I  get  through 
with  it. 

Mr.  BARTLETT  of  Georgia.  Oh,  I  am  very  patient. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  That  is  right;  I  am  glad  you  are. 

Mr.  BARTLETT  of  Georgia.  But  I  will  wait  a  long  time  be¬ 
fore  the  gentleman  makes  his  assertion  good. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  1  say  that  there  is  in  this 
record  evidence  showfing  fraudulent  chicanery  and  trickery  upon 
the  part  of  this  contestee.  upon  the  part  of  his  advisers,  and  I  say 
now  that  this  evidence  shows  that  the  new  scheme  hatched  and 
devised,  one  such  as  was  never  exposed  in  this  House  before,  was 
hatched  and  devised  in  a  political  party  caucus.  Now.  Mr.  Speaker, 
I  will  come  to  that.  Let  us  look  at  these  two  contestants.  These 
gentlemen  are  so  much  afraid  that  the  people  of  that  magnificent 
agricultural  district  shall  be  deprived  of  the  representative  of 
their  choice.  Let  me  call  attention  to  where  their  hearts  were 
fixed  in  their  choice. 

In  the  first  place,  the  convention  that  nominated  Mr.  Finis  E. 
Downing  met  in  the  county  adjoining  my  own.  It  was  in  session 
day  and  night  for  I  do  not  know  how  many  days,  until  more  than 
a  thousand  ballots  were  taken  before  the  nominee  was  chosen. 

Mr.  MILES.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  me  an  inquiry? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Why,  yes;  if  it  is  not  for  the  mere  sake  of 
interrupting  me. 

Mr.  MILES.  It  is  not.  Is  that  fact  in  the  record? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  No,  sir;  it  is  not;  but  it  is  before  the  House 
now.  It  is  in  the  circumambient  air.  [Laughter  and  applause.] 
I  tell  you  there  are  many  things  that  are  not  in  this  record;  but 
they  are  in  my  mind  and  knowledge,  and  I  will  tell  you.  I  do  not 
propose  to  let  the  other  side  of  this  House  use  me  as  a  monkey  to 
pull  their  chestnuts  out  of  the  fire.  [Applause.]  I  am  here  in 
this  court  of  last  resort. 

Mr.  BARTLETT  of  Georgia.  May  I  ask  the  gentleman  a 
question? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  No,  sir;  I  will  not  submit  to  any  more  of 
this  flea-biting.  [Laughter  and  apjflause.] 

Mr.  BARTLETT  of  Georgia.  Mr.  Speaker - 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore  (Mr.  Sherman).  The  gentleman 
from  Illinois  declines  to  yield. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  said  there  were  many  things 
here  where  we  are  bound  by  no  law  except  the  law  of  right,  the 
law  of  conscience,  the  law  that  commands  every  honest  man  to 
bring  to  his  aid  in  the  determination  of  any  question  where  he  is 
not  bound  by  statute  law  all  the  knowledge  that  he  has  and  all 
the  information  he  has  obtained  from  every  source.  I  have  it;  I 
*c(K) 


6 


will  use  it;  I  will  act  upon  it.  I  am  justified  as  an  honest  man  in 
doing  it. 

I  said  here,  with  reference  to  the  choice  of  the  people  of  that 
district,  Mr.  Downing  was  nominated  after  the  convention  had 
labored  for  days  and  nights,  he  all  the  time  sitting  there  with  the 
single  vote  of  his  own  little  county  of  Cass,  while  the  Congres¬ 
sional  timber  of  the  district  was  being  voted  for  by  the  great  body 
of  the  convention,  until  finally  the  mountain  labored  and  Mr. 
Downing  was  nominated.  [Laughter.]  They  are  not  without 
Congressional  timber  in  that  district,  either  Republican  or  Dem¬ 
ocratic.  The  other  convention  nominated  General  Rinaker. 
There  were  no  sessions  of  days  and  nights.  He  stood  like  Saul 
among  the  children  of  Israel,  head  and  shoulders  above  all  of 
them;  and  it  was  the  work  of  but  a  moment  to  select  the  man 
upon  whom  all  eyes  were  turned.  There  you  see  the  very  initia¬ 
tion  of  this  thing.  Again,  that  district  has  normally  between 
5,000  and  6,000  Democratic  majority.  It  had  never  been  known 
to  elect  a  Republican.  No  Republican  was  ever  able  to  be  heard 
of  in  an  election  in  that  Congressional  district  until  after  that 
long  convention,  in  which  they  finally  eased  themselves  off  by 
nominating  Mr.  Downing. 

Now,  you  talk  about  the  choice  of  the  people  of  that  district. 
You  find  first  that  his  own  party  did  not  want  to  nominate  Mr. 
Downing;  secondly,  after  he  was  nominated,  instead  of  5,000  or 
6,000  majority,  that  had  been  common  in  the  district,  all  they 
could  do,  by  hook  and  crook  and  pencil  pointing  and  ingenious 
figuring  was  to  count  him  in  by  a  majority  of  40.  Do  you  suppose, 
then,  that  the  people  of  that  district,  the  Democrats  of  that  dis¬ 
trict,  are  lying  awake  at  nights  praying  for  the  success  of  Mr. 
Downing  in  this  contest?  This  history  that  I  have  given  you,  and 
which  is  true,  indicates  that  there  was  no  such  desire;  not  by  any 
means. 

Now,  then,  sir,  I  come  to  this  fraudulent  effort,  to  this  political 
trickery,  that  has  manipulated  this  case  from  beginning  to  end. 

The  election  took  place  on  the  6th  day  of  November,  1894.  Un¬ 
der  the  law,  which  Rinaker  could  not  escape  from,  he  must  give 
his  notice  within  thirty  days  after  the  vote  has  been  declared. 
He  gave  notice  on  the  19th  day  of  December.  Mr.  Downing  filed 
his  answer  on  the  17th  day  of  January.  The  same  day  the  answer 
was  filed  General  Rinaker  gave  notice  to  Mr.  Downing  that  he 
would  begin  to  take  the  testimony  in  his  case  in  Calhoun  and  Jer¬ 
sey  counties,  fixing  the  dates.  Mark,  that  was  on  the  17th  day  of 
January. 

Now,  let  me  call  attention  to  what  the  record  shows  as  to  the 
condition  of  the  ballots  in  that  county  of  Calhoun,  which  was 
the  first  county  that  Mr.  Rinaker’s  notice  stated  he  proposed  to 
take  evidence  in.  When  he  subsequently  took  depositions  there 
in  accordance  with  the  notice,  the  county  clerk  came  on  the  wit¬ 
ness  stand  and,  in  reply  to  questions  propounded  as  to  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  ballots,  said  that  there  were  then  in  his  office  two 
packages,  I  think,  of  ballots  from  two  precincts  in  that  county 
the  envelopes  of  which  were  not  sealed;  that  the  envelopes  were 
open  and  he  did  not  know  who  had  unsealed  them,  or  whether 
the  ballots  in  those  envelopes  were  the  same  ballots  that  had  been 
returned  by  the  election  judges  or  not.  Let  me  tell  you  further 
that  on  the  very  night  of  the  election  the  reporters  who  were 
watching  the  returns  sent  out  a  report  of  the  result.  They  have 
there,  I  believe,  a  telegraph  line,  but  they  have  no  railroad  and 
2400 


no  ready  means  of  communicating  with  the  outside  world.  A 
report  was  sent  out  on  the  night  of  the  election  to  the  Chicago  and 
St.  Louis  daily  newspapers  by  a  gentleman,  a  Democrat  familiar 
with  the  politics  of  the  county,  that  General  Rinaker  had  car¬ 
ried  the  county  by  a  majority  of  26  votes.  That  is  the  county 
where  Rinaker,  on  the  very  day  that  Downing  served  his  answer, 
gave  notice  that  he  would  begin  taking  testimony — the  county 
which  the  first  reports  stated  that  he  had  carried  by  26  votes. 

Mr.  MARSH.  What  was  the  official  return  from  that  county? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  It  was  forty-eight  hours  after  that  before 
any  different  report  was  sent  out  to  the  world.  Hidden  away  as 
they  were  there  in  Calhoun  County,  they  were  free  to  do  as  they 
pleased;  and  that  county,  which  was  first  announced  as  having 
been  carried  by  Rinaker,  was  the  county  in  which  two  packages 
of  envelopes  subsequently  turned  up  open,  so  that  the  county 
clerk  could  not  tell  whether  they  were  the  ballots  that  had  been 
cast  and  had  been  returned  by  the  judges  or  other  ballots  that  had 
been  stuffed  in  there  in  the  interval  between  the  first  and  the  sec¬ 
ond  reports,  so  as  to  make  the  ballots  that  would  be  found  in  the 
envelope  conform  to  the  second  report.  That  was  done  by  some¬ 
body  in  Calhoun  County.  This  gentleman — Mr.  Downing — may 
not  have  known  of  it,  but  he  did  not  devise  this  plan  himself 
alone,  because,  while  he  is  a  lawyer  by  admission  to  the  bar,  yet 
by  practice  he  is  county  clerk  and  editor  of  a  Democratic  news¬ 
paper  at  the  county  seat,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  he  devised  the 
trick  of  the  injunction.  But  does  it  not  appear  obviously  that 
the  men  who  did  devise  it  knew  something  about  the  condition  of 
things  in  Calhoun  County;  knew  something  about  these  ballots 
and  how  unsafe  it  would  be  to  have  Rinaker  go  down  there  and 
expose  those  ballots  open  and  show,  perhaps,  that  some  of  those 
ballots  had  not  been  cast,  but  had  been  subsequently  stuck  into 
those  envelopes,  and  did  not  bear  the  marks  of  the  judges  of  the 
precinct  in  whose  envelopes  they  were  found? 

At  all  events,  on  that  17th  day  of  January,  Mr.  Rinaker  served 
on  Mr.  Downing  the  notice  of  contest,  and  within  two  days  after 
that  Downing  and  his  lawyers  have  devised  a  plan  whereby  they 
will  prevent  an  official  examination  of  those  Calhoun  County  bal¬ 
lots,  and  they  will  do  it  by  a  new  scheme,  and  will  do  it  before 
Rinaker  can  know  anything  about  it.  They  prepare  a  bill  for  an 
injunction.  They  do  not  make  Rinaker  a  party  to  that  bill. 
Mark  you,  Rinaker  is  not  in  that  suit  at  all.  They  ignore  him, 
but  they  include  every  county  clerk  in  the  Congressional  district. 
They  apply  to  the  judge  at  Jacksonville,  Judge  Epler,  who  is  hold¬ 
ing  court,  but  he  declines  to  take  part  in  the  scheme.  Then  they 
send  to  a  distant  county  for  Judge  Lacey.  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  is  any  kin  to  my  friend  from  Iowa  who  is  so  voluble  in  sup¬ 
porting  his  opinion  here  or  not,  but  the  name  is  the  same.  Judge 
Lacey  I  know  very  well.  He  is  a  very  excellent  judge.  I  have  to 
practice  law  before  him,  so  I  am  not  going  to  say  anything  mean 
about  him  here  [laughter] ;  gentlemen  will  understand  that.  But 
in  fact  there  is  no  occasion  to  say  anything  mean  about  him.  He 
is  a  good  judge  and  a  splendid  man,  and  lie  is  as  intense  a  Demo¬ 
crat  as  any  State  ever  turned  out — clean-cut  to  the  marrowbone. 
[Laughter.] 

Now,  I  say  Judge  Epler,  who  lives  in  Jacksonville,  and  who  was 
holding  court  there  at  that  very  time,  having  declined  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  scheme,  they  sent  to  the  distant  county 
of  Mason  for  Judge  Lacey  to  come  to  Jacksonville,  where  the  court 
2400 


8 


was  in  session.  Jacksonville  is  in  liis  circuit.  He  came,  and  when 
Judge  Epler  had  an  adjournment  of  the  court,  at  noon  or  in  the  even¬ 
ing,  Judge  Lacey  took  the  bench  and  Mr.  Downing  or  his  attorney  * 

presented  the  bill  setting  out  the  equitable  reasons  why  he  claimed 
that  those  ballots  should  not  be  disturbed.  Thereupon  Judge 
Lacey  without  any  difficulty  immediately  granted  an  injunction 
preventing  an  examination  of  the  ballots.  Calhoun  County  and 
its  open  envelopes  of  ballots  from  that  instant  were  protected,  and 
the  door  of  inquiry  was  shut.  They  succeeded  in  protecting  the 
men  who  opened  those  envelopes  in  Calhoun  County  by  this  in¬ 
famous  injunction — I  can  not  characterize  it  as  anything  less. 

Now,  tell  me,  is  there  no  evidence  in  all  this  of  that  moral  fraud 
of  which  I  have  spoken  in  the  conduct  of  this  gentleman  and  of 
his  secret  advisers?  But  the  gentlemen  say,  ‘  *  If  he  has  been  guilty 
of  a  mistake” — they  call  it  innocently  a  mistake — “if  he  has  been 
guilty  of  a  mistake  do  not  punish  him  or  punish  the  people  of  the 
district  in  consequence  of  it.”  Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  folly  to  charac¬ 
terize  this  as  a  mistake.  The  resort  to  the  injunction  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  protecting  those  ballots  from  an  honest  inspection,  exam¬ 
ination,  and  recount  was  for  a  fraudulent  purpose.  It  was  to 
suppress,  to  destroy,  to  make  away  with  the  ballots,  or  to  keep 
them  there  until  their  confederates  might  do  what  they  chose  in 
preparing  those  ballots  for  examination,  if  the  day  should  ever 
come  for  such  examination.  Now,  why  did  he  say  he  wanted  those 
ballots  not  examined?  Here  is  the  act  of  Congress  that  says  to 
General  Rinaker,  “If  you  want  those  ballots  examined, you  must 
give  notice  to  the  men  who  have  them  in  possession  to  bring  them 
before  your  notary  and  have  them  there  counted,  and  the  result 
declared  by  the  mouths  of  witnesses  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Down¬ 
ing.”  That  is  what  the  law  says  that  Rinaker  must  do. 

Mr.  GRAFF.  If  he  had  not  done  that  could  he  ever  have  had 
those  ballots  examined? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  As  I  said  before,  of  course  not.  The  law 
limited  Rinaker  to  forty  days  within  which  to  take  everything. 

The  oral  testimony  of  witnesses,  the  examination  of  the  ballots 
and  the  tally  sheets,  and  the  illegal  votes — everything  must  be 
done  within  the  forty  days.  Rinaker  was  pursuing  the  law  as 
laid  down  and  as  binding  upon  him.  In  steps  Mr.  Downing  with 
this  injunction.  What  was  the  pretense  and  excuse  for  it?  Was 
it  honest?  I  say  not.  Every  candid  man  who  will  look  at  it  will 
sa3r  that  it  is  simply  a  trick  and  nothing  else.  Let  me  read  his 
language.  Mark  you,  he  does  not  make  Rinaker  a  party,  but  he 
sets  out  that  he  and  Rinaker  were  candidates  for  Congress;  he 
sets  out  that  he  was  declared  elected;  he  sets  out  that  Rinaker  has 
given  him  notice  of  a  contest  of  his  seat.  Then  he  says:  ^ 

And  your  orator  says  he  has  reason  to  believe,  and  does  believe,  and  so 
charges,  that  if  such  demand  is  made  by  said  Rinaker,  said  officers  will  com¬ 
ply  therewith. 

Of  course  they  would.  The  law  plainly  and  clearly  requires 
them  to  do  it.  He  knew  they  would  comply;  hence  he  was  safe  in 
swearing  to  it. 

Said  officers  will  comply  therewith,  and  issue  the  subpoena  as  aforesaid,  and 
that  said  county  clerks  of  the  courts  of  said  counties  will  comply  with  and 
obey  said  subpoena  and  produce  before  such  officer  the  said  ballots  so  voted 
in  said  county,  and  that  the  same  will  be  opened  and  a  pretended  recount 
thereof  be  had. 

Do  not  gentlemen  know  that  for  years  and  years  past,  in  almost 
every  county  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  very  thing  has  been 
done?  In  every  contested  election  case,  from  a  township  election 
2400 


9 


up  to  a  legislative  election,  evidence  has  been  taken  before  nota¬ 
ries  public  under  the  law  of  Illinois  similar  to  this  law  of  the 
United  States.  Ballots  have  been  brought  there;  their  contents 
examined  and  stated  before  witnesses.  That  is  the  only  way  of  tak¬ 
ing  the  testimony  in  the  case  of  legislative  contests,  just  like  the 
contest  provided  for  in  this  Federal  statute. 

He  goes  on  further  to  say: 

Your  orator  says  that  in  case  said  ballots  are  taken  and  opened  and  a  pre¬ 
tended  recount  of  the  same  be  made,  the  same  will  be  in  violation  of  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  statutes  of  the  State  of  Illinois — 

It  will,  eh?  What  provision,  and  what  provision  only,  could 
it  be  in  violation  of?  That  I  will  show  the  House  in  a  moment 
after  1  get  through  with  what  is  contained  in  this  bill.  He  resumes: 

and  will  result  in  great  and  irreparable  injury  to  him  in  this  case;  that  said 
ballots  are  the  evidence  of  his  election — 

He  did  not  rely,  then,  on  the  certificate  of  election.  That  he 
already  had.  That  is  the  evidence  required  by  this  House  to  seat 
him;  but  he  says  here  that  the  ballots  are  the  evidence  of  his 
election — 

and  if  the  same  be  so  taken  and  opened  as  demanded  they  will  lose  their 
efficacy  and  virtue — 

And  flavor,  he  might  have  added — 

as  legal  evidence  of  his  election,  because  the  said  ballots  can  not  be  legally 
opened  and  x*ecounted  — 

Now  mark  this — 

except  in  open  court  or  in  open  session  of  the  body  authorized  by  law  to 
try  said  contest 

There  is  his  ground.  There,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
election  contests,  an  attempt  was  made  by  a  cabal  of  Democratic 
politicians  to  put  in  opposition  to  the  Federal  law  that  provision 
of  the  law  of  Illinois  which  declares  that  the  ballots  can  only  be 
opened  and  counted  in  the  presence  of  a  court  or  in  open  ses¬ 
sion  of  the  body  authorized  to  try  the  contested  election  case. 
There  is  such  a  law.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Moody]  yesterday,  when  I  interpolated  into  lus  remarks  the  sug¬ 
gestion  that  the  injunction  did  not  follow  the  statute  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,  said  very  promptly  to  me  that  it  did — that  it  was  in 
the  very  terms  of  the  statute  of  Illinois. 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  did  not  intend  to  say  so. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  think  the  gentleman  said  many  things 
which  on  reflection  he  will  not  stand  by.  But  that  is  one  of  the 
things  that  he  distinctly  said — that  the  injunction  was  in  the  very 
language  of  the  statute  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Mr  MOODY.  The  gentleman  is  in  error  about  my  present 
view  as  he  is  about  very  many  things  in  this  case. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  About  your  “present  view ”  I  do  not  know. 
You  may  have  reformed  somewhat  since  yesterday.  But  there  is 
the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Downing.  He  says,  in  order  to  keep 
Rinaker  from  inspecting  these  ballots  and  the  condition  of  the 
envelope  in  which  they  are  contained,  that  if  the  court  permitted 
the  ballots  to  be  recounted,  it  would  destroy  the  evidence  of  his 
election. 

Well,  wrhat  had  already  become  at  that  very  time  of  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  his  election  in  Macoupin  County?  The  evidence  shows 
that  every  one  of  these  ballots  had  been  opened  and  counted. 
What  had  become  of  the  evidence  of  his  election  in  Cass  County? 
The  record  shows  that  in  eight  townships  of  that  county  the  bal¬ 
lots  had  been  opened  and  counted,  right  in  the  very  county  and 


10 


under  the  nose  of  Mr.  Downing  himself;  and.  I  have  no  doubt, 
from  the  time  the  count  began  and  went  on  he  himself  wrote  edi¬ 
torial  articles  in  his  paper  to  inform  the  people  of  his  county  that 
the  recount  of  the  ballots  was  going  on.  And  yet  he  did  not  think 
that  that  affected  the  evidence  of  his  election.  Why  did  not  he 
seek  an  injunction  then?  He  did  not.  General  Rinaker  suggests 
to  me  that  the  recount  in  Cass  County  was  after  the  service  of  the 
notice  and  the  taking  of  testimony.  Very  good;  it  was  after  the 
granting  of  the  injunction.  That  was  granted  on  the  19th  day 
of  January. 

After  that  date,  right  in  the  city  in  which  Mr.  Downing  lived, 
in  the  court-house  where  for  eight  years  he  was  the  county  clerk, 
and  in  which  I  know  he  entered  his  appearance  every  day,  right 
there,  and  no  doubt  with  him  standing  by  half  of  the  time,  a 
count  of  these  very  ballots  was  going  on — the  ballots  of  that 
county — that  were  to  appear  as  evidence  of  his  election;  a  count 
that  was  lessening  their  virtue,  where  they  were  vaporing  their 
essence  away,  disappearing  by  that  recount,  and  yet  he  had  al¬ 
ready  obtained  the  injunction  restraining  all  of  the  county  clerks, 
the  clerk  of  his  own  county  with  the  others,  from  permitting  the 
ballots  to  be  taken  and  counted  at  all.  Why  does  he  permit  them 
to  be  taken  and  counted  after  the  injunction  right  in  his  own 
county  and  town?  Did  he  want  to  let  the  recount  run  on  and  see 
whether  he  would  make  or  lose  by  it?  I  do  not  know.  But  it 
went  far  enough,  at  all  events,  to  demonstrate  to  him  that  he  was 
losing,  and  then  he  either  drew  the  injunction  on  the  clerk  and 
made  him  shut  up  the  ballots  or  his  party  friends  advised  him  that 
if  he  let  this  proceeding  go  further  in  that  manner  that  the  evi¬ 
dence  would  unseat  him.  Therefore  he  had  better  keep  the  door 
locked  and  get  the  Democratic  contesting  treasurer  to  close  the 
contest  just  as  quickly  as  possible.  Now,  see  the  juggling  which 
has  been  going  on  with  reference  to  the  matter.  See  how  this  man 
and  his  party  friends  have  been  juggling  with  this  case  and  the 
ballots.  After  getting  out  an  injunction  he  permits  the  clerk  to 
open  the  ballots  in  his  own  county,  and  no  doubt  stood  by  and 
looked  at  theni  as  their  count  progressed. 

Now,  as  to  this  injunction,  what  does  it  say — because  undoubt¬ 
edly  it  was  granted  in  the  very  words  this  gentleman  himself  and 
his  counsel  in  their  secret  cabals  drew  up  and  in  the  -words  of  the 
affidavit  that  they  deemed  to  be  necessary?  What  does  it  say?  The 
language  is: 

It  is  therefore  ordered,  adjudged,  and  decreed  by  the  court  that  the  said 
defendants  as  county  clerks  of  their  respective  counties,  and  each  of  them 
and  their  successors" in  office,  and  their  deputies,  assistants,  agents,  and  at¬ 
torneys,  and  each  of  them  has,  and  they  are  hereby,  enjoined  and  restrained 
from  opening  the  ballots  cast  at  the  election  held  in  their  respective  counties 
on  the  6th  day  of  November,  A.  D.  1894,  and  now  in  the  custody  or  possession 
of  said  defendants,  as  county  clerks  of  their  respective  counties,  or  from  per¬ 
mitting  the  same  to  be  opened  or  recounted,  or  from  removing  or  permitting 
said  ballots  to  be  removed  from  the  place  where  they  are  now  k$pt,  until  the 
same  are  ordered  to  be  opened  or  recounted  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdic¬ 
tion  of  the  State  of  Illinois  or  of  the  United  States  or  by  the  House  of  Repre¬ 
sentatives  in  Congress  of  the  United  States,  after  the  3d  day  of  March,  A.  D. 
1895. 

There  is  the  extent  now  of  the  injunction,  fraudulently  ob¬ 
tained  for  the  purpose,  smirched  with  moral  fraud,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  all  the  evidence  showing  that  in  Calhoun  County  the 
ballots — and  in  some  other  county,  I  forget  which  now — had  been 
opened,  and  their  validity  as  evidence  in  the  case  practically 
destroyed.  And  it  does  not  take  many  open  packages  of  ballots 
3400 


11 


to  overturn  a  majority  of  only  some  30,  40,  or  50,  and  there  are 
many  men  who  can  make  the  necessary  changes  with  nimble 
fingers  and  do  the  trick  very  quickly,  and  Brother  Lacey  would 
never  discover  it. 

But  the  injunction  restrained  these  county  clerks.  Now,  mark 
you,  Mr.  Rinaker  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  that.  Bylaw 
he  knows  nothing  whatever  about  it.  Now,  some  of  these  gentle¬ 
men  learned  in  the  law  say,  Why  did  not  Mr.  Rinaker  appeal  that 
case?  Why?  Have  you,  my  legal  friends,  ever  discovered  a  way 
by  which  you  can  appeal  a  case  which  you  are  not  a  party  to?  I 
never  have.  Neither  in  the  State  nor  in  the  Federal  law  have  I 
ever  discovered  it,  and  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  who 
labored  long  to  find  a  way  to  permit  General  Rinaker  to  appeal 
that  case,  found  none,  first,  for  the  reason  that  the  suit  was  filed 
to  the  May  term  of  Morgan  County  court,  and  our  statute  requires 
that  a  bill  in  chancery  shall  be  filed  ten  days  before  the  term  of 
court  at  which  the  case  may  stand  for  trial;  and  the  subpoena 
shall  be  issued  and  served  ten  days  before  the  term  of  the  court 
at  which  the  case  is  to  be  heard. 

Now,  this  bill  was  filed  and  the  summons  in  chancery  issued  in 
January,  for  what  term  of  court?  Returnable  to  the  May  term 
of  the  court.  What  would  be  the  condition  of  things  when  the 
May  term  of  court  arrived?  Why,  Rinaker’s  forty  days  for  tak¬ 
ing  testimony  under  the  law  of  Congress  would  have  expired 
long  before  that.  The  whole  ninety  days,  indeed,  the  time  given 
for  Rinaker,  the  time  given  for  Downing,  the  time  given  for  evi¬ 
dence  in  rei>ly,  would  all  have  expired  before  the  term  of  court  at 
which  these  gentlemen  so  ingeniously  made  their  summons  return¬ 
able.  Was  there  no  trick  in  that?  There  was,  right  in  that  cir¬ 
cuit,  a  court  to  begin  on  the  second  Monday  in  February.  Why 
did  they  not  go  and  file  their  bill  in  that  court,  where  there  might 
have  been  a  hearing  on  the  second  Monday  in  February?  No;  that 
did  not  suit  their  purpose.  The  purpose  was  to  chop  the  dog’s 
tail  off  right  behind  his  ears.  It  was  to  completely  and  effectually 
shut  Rinaker  out  from  having  opportunity  to  comply  with  the 
law  of  Congress. 

“And  then,”  said  the  little  cabal  of  Democratic  politicians, 
with  Downing  in  their  midst,  “pay  no  more  attention  to  him,  but 
when  Congress  meets  Rinaker  will  be  there  without  any  evidence. 
He  will  beg  the  House  to  permit  him  to  take  evidence,  because  you 
have  got  in  his  way.  But  there  will  be  no  trouble.  With  the 
united  Democratic  vote  and  a  few  superserviceable  mugwumps 
there  will  be  no  trouble  to  turn  Rinaker  outdoors  and  send  him 
back  to  plod  along  his  weary  way  in  the  State  of  Illinois.”  That 
was  the  scheme,  morally  tainted  with  fraud,  for  the  purpose  ot 
circumventing  the  law  x>assed  by  Congress.  Some  gentleman,  I 
believe  it  was  a  Pennsylvania  gentleman,  whom  I  understand  to 
be  a  lawyer,  said  tome,  “Why  did  not  General  Rinaker  appeal 
that  case  then?  ”  Why,  my  dear  Pennsylvania  friend,  have  you 
any  way  by  which  a  stranger  to  a  case  could  go  into  a  court  and 
appeal  that  case?  When  Smith  and  Brown  have  a  lawsuit,  can 
John  Jones  come  in  and  api>eal  the  case?  Not  by  any  means. 
“Oh,  well,”  my  friend  suggests,  “Rinaker  could  have  filed  a  bill 
of  interx>leader.”  These  learned  lawyers,  you  know,  the  worse 
they  are  confounded  the  longer  the  names  of  the  different  things 
that  they  are  willing  to  suggest.  He  might  file  a  bill  of  inter¬ 
pleader.  Yes,  he  might,  when  the  May  term  of  that  court  came. 

52400 


12 


Mr.  HOPKINS.  Will  my  colleague  allow  me? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Yes. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Suppose  that  Democratic  judge,  who  was  aid¬ 
ing  this  Democratic  member  of  Congress  to  suppress  the  evidence 
there,  had  said  that  he  was  not  a  proper  party,  that  he  was  simply 
acting  against  the  clerks,  and  the  clerks  only. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  was  about  to  say  that.  He  might  file  a 
bill  of  interpleader  when  the  May  term  of  the  court  came;  but  he 
could  not  do  it  without  leave  of  the  court.  He  could  not  file  his 
bill  of  interpleader  before  the  May  term,  and  under  the  law  of 
Illinois  y  ou  can  not  file  your  bill  of  interpleader  in  chancery  with¬ 
out  leave  of  the  court,  not  leave  of  the  judge.  Many  of  these 
gentlemen,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Moody] 
among  others,  have  confounded  the  terms  “  court”  and  “  judge.” 
They  are  quite  different.  When  the  May  term  of  the  court  came, 
he  might  file  his  bill  of  interpleader  for  the  first  time. 

Mark  you,  he  could  not  appeal,  for  he  is  not  a  party  to  the  case. 
He  can  not  become  a  party  until  the  May  term  of  the  court. 
He  can  not  then  become  a  party  without  leave  of  the  judge  who 
granted  the  injunction,  sitting  in  open  court.  Then,  suppose  the 
judge  who  has  so  far  cut  General  Rinaker  out  from  his  rights 
under  the  act  of  Congress,  suppose  that  judge,  in  furtherance  of 
the  position  he  has  taken,  should  say  to  General  Rinaker,  “  You 
can  not  have  any  interest  in  this  proceeding.  If  injustice  has  been 
done  you,  your  remedy  is  in  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
Washington;  therefore  I  will  not  allow  the  filing  of  your  bill  of 
interpleader.”  I  am  speaking  of  the  facts  to  show  that  by  this 
injunction  they  had  effectually  bottled  Rinaker  up,  had  effectually 
nullified  this  act  of  Congress,  and  had  done  it  by  this  injunction, 
which  did  not  follow  the  language  of  the  law  of  Illinois.  The 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Moody]  a  while  ago  said 
that  I  misunderstood  him  when  he  declared  that  the  injunction 
followed  the  statute  of  Illinois;  but  he  and  the  gentleman  from 
Iowa  [Mr.  Lacey]  said  the  same  thing.  I  read  from  the  Record: 

Mr.  Lacey.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  injunction  simply  copies  the  language 
of  the  statute  of  Illinois? 

Mr.  Moody.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Lacey.  The  injunction  uses  the  identical  language  of  the  statute;  and 
if  there  was  any  violation  of  the  proprieties  of  the  occasion,  it  arose  from 
simply  copying  the  statute. 

Now,  I  stated,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  this  injunction  effectually 
bottled  Rinaker  up.  It  effectually  nullified  this  act  of  Congress 
that  required  him  to  get  his  evidence  within  forty  days.  He  could 
not  do  it  with  the  injunction  standing,  not  against  him  of  course, 
but  against  the  county  clerks.  Now,  these  ingenious  gentlemen 
are  driven  from  the  position  of  saying  that  he  might  appeal  the 
case,  and  they  find  that  that  is  not  true,  and  that  he  could  not 
appeal  it.  They  find  that  he  could  not  file  a  bill  of  interpleader, 
and  if  for  no  other  reason,  the  judge  would  say  to  him,  “Why,  you 
can  not  count  these  ballots  now.  You  must  count  them  within 
forty  days  after  the  beginning  of  the  contest.  The  forty  days  have 
expired.  Your  right  is  gone,  and  hence  you  can  not  come  in  by 
bill  of  interpleader.” 

The  injunction  is  granted,  not  in  the  language  of  the  statute  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  but  quite  as  effectually  nullifying  the  law  of 
the  United  States  as  if  it  had  been  in  the  exact  language  of  the 
statute  of  Illinois.  Instead  of  this  injunction  following  precisely 
the  language  of  the  statute  of  Illinois,  it  follows  precisely  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  bill  filed  and  sworn  to  by  Mr.  Downing. 

2400 


13 


Mr.  STRODE  of  Nebraska.  But  did  not  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Moody]  state  yesterday  in  answer  to  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Lacey]  that  it  did  follow  the  exact  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  statute? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  have  read  that  from  the  Record.  Mr. 
Moody  and  Mr.  Lacey  both  agreed  that  it  did  follow  the  precise 
language  of  that  statute,  and  I  have  shown  they  were  both  wrong 
in  that  matter. 

Now,  sir,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  the  statute  of  Illinois 
does  say  about  this  matter  of  opening  the  ballots,  and  where  they 
shall  be  opened,  I  read  from  the  statute  itself,  first,  the  pro¬ 
vision  that  the  officer  shall  carefully  preserve  the  ballots  for  six 
months,  and  at  the  expiration  of  that  time  shall  destroy  them  by 
burning  without  previously  opening  the  ballots;  the  ballots  shall 
be  destroyed  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  etc. 

Provided ,  That  if  any  contest  of  an  election  of  any  officer  voted  for  at  snch 
election  shall  be  pending  at  the  expiration  of  said  time  the  said  ballots  shall 
not  be  destroyed  until  such  contest  is  finally  determined.  In  all  cases  of 
contested  election  the  parties  contesting  the  same  shall  have  the  right  to 
have  s&id  ballots  opened. 

They  have,  therefore,  the  right  to  have  the  ballots  opened.  Mr. 
Downing  said  they  have  not.  The  law  of  Congress  says  they  have; 
the  law  of  Illinois  says  they  have;  but  the  judge  to  whom  he  went 
said  they  had  not. 

In  case  of  contested  elections  the  parties  contesting  the  same  shall  have 
the  right  to  have  said  ballots  opened  and  to  have  all  errors  of  the  judges  in 
counting,  revising  the  count,  and  the  ballots  corrected  by  the  court  or  body 
trying  such  contest. 

Then  comes  this  further  provision: 

But  such  ballots  shall  be  opened  only  in  open  court  or  in  session  of  such 
body,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  officer  having  the  custody  thereof. 

Now,  the  court  granted  an  injunction  under  the  plan  that  was 
agreed  upon  by  those  gentlemen,  by  a  literal  construction  of  the 
law  of  Illinois;  that  is,  if  the  House  wanted  to  have  these  ballots 
counted,  it  must  conform  to  the  law  of  Illinois,  namely,  have 
them  counted  in  open  session.  Gentlemen  say  the  injunction  did 
not  so  say.  The  injunction  does  not;  the  statute  does.  The  stat¬ 
ute  says  they  shall  not  be  opened  except  “in  open  session  of  the 
body  trying  the  case.”  The  Committee  on  Elections  do  not  try 
the  case.  It  is  the  House  of  Representatives  that  tries  the  case. 
There,  then,  we  come  up  against  a  question  of  conflict  between 
the  State  and  Federal  law.  There  is  no  doubt  that  Congress  has 
the  right  to  prescribe  laws  to  regulate  the  election  of  members  of 
Congress;  and  when  Congress  passes  such  a  law  it  must  be  su- 
I  prerae  on  that  subject.  In  the  absence  of  any  law,  the  State  has 

the  right  to  regulate  and  make  provisions  for  the  election  of 
members  of  Congress,  for  the  counting  of  the  ballots,  for  the  de¬ 
struction  of  the  ballots,  if  you  please;  but  if  Congress  has  passed 
a  law  upon  any  one  of  those  branches,  then  that  law  must  be  su- 
I  preme. 

The  Illinois  law  says  the  ballot  shall  only  be  opened  in  open  ses¬ 
sion  of  the  house  of  “the  body  trying  the  case.”  The  law  of  Con¬ 
gress  passed  in  1851  says  that  the  evidence  shall  be  taken  not  in 
open  session  of  the  House,  but  that  all  ballots,  papers,  and  evi¬ 
dence  of  every  kind  shall  be  taken  before  a  notary  or  any  of  those 
other  officers  within  the  first  forty  days.  There  the  two  laws  are 
in  conflict.  The  law  of  Congress  says  you  must  take  your  evi¬ 
dence  in  forty  days,  and  then  says  you  must  bring  your  papers. 

JMOO 


14 


The  gentleman  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Lacey]  says  “ballots  are  not 
papers.”  I  presume  he  is  the  only  lawyer  in  the  House  who 
would  say  that  as  a  matter  of  law.  Ballots  are  papers.  Well, 
sir,  the  law  of  Congress  says  the  ballots  must  be  brought  before 
a  notary,  and  if  they  are  they  must  be  counted  within  the  forty 
days.  Then,  Congress  having  now  legislated  upon  the  manner  of 
taking  the  evidence  of  the  ballots,  the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is 
inoperative  on  that  question.  But  the  judge  who  granted  this 
injunction  says  clearly  the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois  shall  pre¬ 
vail  and  the  law  of  Congress  shall  be  ignored. 

Now,  my  friends  on  this  side  of  the  House,  with  a  large  Repub¬ 
lican  majority,  let  me  say  that  you  are  confronted  for  the  first 
time  here  in  your  history  with  an  attempt  by  a  State  judge  to 
absolutely  nullify  this  Federal  election  contest  law.  If  you  by 
your  votes  indorse  or  permit  that  nullification,  in  how  many  con¬ 
tested  election  cases  in  the  future  coming  from  the  States  of  the 
South  will  you  ever  be  able  to  get  the  ballots  counted?  Not  one. 
The  Republican  party  had  its  very  life  and  existence  by  maintain¬ 
ing  the  doctrine  that  the  laws  of  the  Federal  Government  are 
supreme  as  the  law  of  this  land  and  that  no  State  law  should  be 
allowed  to  interfere  with  them.  W e  were  cradled  in  that  doctrine. 

Now,  after  forty  years  of  successful  and  splendid  service  for  the 
nation,  we  find  Republicans  on  this  side  of  the  House  forgetting 
the  early  teachings  of  the  fathers  of  the  Republican  party,  for¬ 
getting  the  doctrines  that  we  were  cradled  in,  coming  in  here 
and  giving  effect  to  an  injunction  granted  by  a  Democratic  judge 
to  impede  and  obstruct  the  operation  of  a  Federal  law  and  hold  a 
Democratic  member  in  his  seat,  which  the  evidence  shows  he  is 
not  entitled  to.  The  idea  of  Republicans  doing  this!  Ah,  but 
some  one  says,  somebody  may  be  afraid  that  we  are  using  our 
great  majority  to  unseat  a  man  improperly.  Are  we  too  cowardly 
to  do  right  lest  we  may  be  criticised  by  some  one  for  doing  it?  If 
so,  abdicate  your  power,  pull  down  the  standard  of  the  Repub¬ 
lican  majority  and  in  its  place  lift  up  the  palmetto  fiag  of  Democ¬ 
racy — and  surrender.  [Loud  applause  on  the  Republican  side.] 

But  gentlemen  say  that  we  have  successfully  seated  two  Repub¬ 
licans  and  two  Democrats;  and  it  seems  that  gentlemen  are  afraid 
that  if  we  should  seat  the  third  Republican  that  that  would  be 
destroying  the  balance  of  power.  They  are  as  afraid  of  this  House 
doing  this  as  it  is  said  the  nations  of  Europe  are  of  partitioning 
Turkey,  for  fear  it  would  destroj7  the  balance  of  power.  Gentle¬ 
men,  we  can  not  afford  to  be  cowards.  We  can  not  afford  here 
to  lower  our  flag  and  abandon  a  doctrine  which  is  one  of  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Republican  party,  namely,  that  where  Congress 
has  passed  a  law  within  its  constitutional  power  to  pass  that  law 
shall  be  supreme. 

As  I  have  said,  Mr.  Speaker,  this  injunction  was  a  trick.  It 
was  obtained  for  a  purpose  morally  fraudulent  and  was  carried 
out  by  the  judge.  I  charge  nothing  upon  him.  He  simplj'  car¬ 
ried  it  out  by  making  an  order  in  accordance  with  the  literal  read¬ 
ing  of  the  statute  of  Illinois,  but  that  injunction  tied  General 
Rinaker's  hands.  Now.  the  law  that  is  on  the  Federal  statute 
book  bound  Rinaker  and  it  bound  Downing,  but  it  does  not  bind 
us.  We  can  say,  “Let  the  law  go.”  Congress  made  a  law  by 
which  General  Rinaker  was  compelled  to  take  the  course  he  did 
take  or  else  abandon  his  contest.  He  could  not  do  otherwise.  He 
would  have  been  foolish  to  have  been  taking  evidence  in  the  mid¬ 
dle  of  next  summer;  you  would  not  have  received  it. 

2400 


15 


Mr.  HENDERSON.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  a  question. 
Suppose  that  Mr.  Murphy  had  not  taken  these  memoranda  during 
the  count  in  the  contest  for  treasurer  and  that  General  Rinaker 
was  without  any  evidence  at  all.  but  still  believed  that  he  had 
been  elected,  what  would  then  be  his  remedy?  And  let  me  follow 
that  thought  up  with  the  suggestion  that  those  of  us  who  perhaps 
do  not  feel  satisfied  to  let  this  Murphy  count  take  the  place  of  a 
formal  count,  where  both  parties  are  represented,  might  feel  like 
pursuing  now  the  same  course  of  safety  to  get  at  the  ballots  (if 
the  status  has  not  been  disturbed)  that  we  would  pursue  if  no 
memoranda  had  been  taken  by  Mr.  Murphy,  and  General  Rinaker 
stood  knocking  at  the  door  of  public  justice  to  have  a  recount 
made. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  was  about  to  turn  to  that  feature  of  the 
case.  Passing  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  I  do,  from  all  the  fraudulent 
nimbus  that  surrounds  this  injunction  proceeding,  I  come  to  the 
question  of  what  General  Rinaker's  attitude  would  be  if  he  had 
given  notice  of  a  contest,  had  simply  stated  that  the  ballots  cast 
in  the  several  counties  when  properly  counted  and  enumerated 
would  show  a  majority  ot  a  thousand  in  his  favor  rather  than  40 
in  favor  of  Mr.  Downing,  and  had  set  up  no  other  cause  of  con¬ 
test,  except  barely  that  the  enumeration  of  the  ballots  had  been 
incorrect.  In  that  case,  if  Downing  had  gone  and  done  just  as 
he  has  done — locked  up  the  ballots — how  could  General  Rinaker 
have  obtained  a  scintilla  of  evidence  to  sustain  his  contest?  But 
if  he  did  not  within  forty  days  obtain  some  evidence  to  maintain 
the  contest,  what  would  be  the  result? 

Now,  suppose  that  this  House  meets,  and  Rinaker's  notice  of 
contest  is  on  file,  and  Downing’s  answer  is  on  file  denying  the 
alleged  miscount  of  ballots,  and  there  is  no  other  question  in¬ 
volved  and  no  evidence  on  file.  The  case  is  referred  to  the  Elec¬ 
tions  Committee.  They  open  the  papers;  there  is  the  notice  of 
contest  and  there  is  the  answer.  The  committee  say:  “  Where  is 
your  evidence,  General  Rinaker?”  “Oh,  1  have  no  evidence. 
Mr.  Downing  prevented  the  clerk  from  letting  me  count  the  bal¬ 
lots,  but  I  want  to  count  them  now.”  What  would  have  been 
Mr.  Downing’s  answer  in  that  case?  He  would  have  pointed  the 
committee  to  the  act  of  Congress,  and  would  have  said:  “That 
law  is  binding  on  you,  Mr.  Rinaker;  that  law  says  that  you  must 
furnish  your  evidence  in  forty  days,  and  you  failing  to  do  that,  I 
am  required  to  do  nothing.  You  are  simply  in  court  with  a  dec¬ 
laration  filed,  a  plea  denying  it,  and  no  proof  to  maintain  it.” 

That  is  what  Mr.  Downing  would  say.  Does  anybody  suppose 
that  Mr.  Downing  and  the  gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the  House 

1  would  in  such  a  case  have  come  up  generously  and  said:  “Oh, 

well,  let  us  have  Mr.  Rinaker's  evidence  taken  now;  let  us 
piece  it  out  for  him;  let  us  try  to  make  a  case  for  him?  ”  Indeed, 
they  would  not.  Mr.  Rinaker  would  merely  have  failed  to  do 
his  duty  under  the  law  and  would  have  to  take  the  consequences. 

1  But  in  fact  General  Rinaker  obeyed  the  law  of  Congress,  which 

was  made  to  control  his  movements  in  such  a  case,  and  Mr. 
Downing  and  his  cabal  stepped  in  the  way.  They  removed  from 
his  reach  the  evidence  that  he  wanted  to  take  and  which  was  nec¬ 
essary  to  make  out  his  case,  removed  it  just  as  effectually  as  if 
they  had  taken  those  ballots  and  dumped  them  into  the  Illinois 
River.  Suppose  that  instead  of  the  county  clerk  being  ordered  at 
Mr.  Downing's  instance  to  take  these  ballots  and  lock  them  up  in  his 
vault  Mr.  Downing  had  got  the  ballots  in  his  own  possession  and 
2400 


16 


had  locked  them  up  in  his  vault,  and  had  said  to  General  Rinaker 
when  called  upon  to  produce  them,  “I  will  not  produce  them  un¬ 
til  the  House  of  Representatives  in  open  session  orders  me  to  do 
so,”  would  it  be  said  then  that  Rinaker  was  bound  to  wait  until 
the  House  did  come  into  session  and  order  those  ballots  to  be 
counted?  The  House  would  undoubtedly  order  them  to  be  re¬ 
counted,  unless  some  reliable  evidence  was  supplied  to  take  the 
place  of  those  ballots.  Gentlemen  have  said  that  those  ballots  are  / 

in  the  same  condition  they  were  in  when  they  left  the  hands  of 
the  inspecting  officers.  / 

Gentlemen,  when  they  reflect  upon  the  evidence  in  this  book, 
will  see  that  they  must  revise  that  statement.  No  man  can  read 
this  evidence  and  fail  to  see  that  in  certain  townships  in  Calhoun 
County  and  one  of  the  others — I  forget  which — somebody  had  been 
tampering  with  those  ballots.  My  friend  from  Iowa  [Mr.  Lacey] 
said  it  was  stipulated  in  the  record  by  these  parties  that  the  bal¬ 
lots  were  in  the  same  condition.  Can  the  parties  stipulate  away  the 
rights  of  this  House?  Can  the  parties  by  a  stipulation  impose 
upon  us  conditions  that  are  improper,  when  the  evidence  shows 
marks  that  require  explanation,  when  the  evidence  shows  that  the 
envelopes  are  not  in  the  condition  in  which  they  were  when  they 
left  the  election  judges? 

Mr.  LACEY.  In  regard  to  the  county  in  which  Mr.  Murphy 
made  the  recount,  do  you  claim  there  is  any  evidence  of  any  kind 
indicating  that  the  ballots  have  not  been  properly  preserved  and 
are  not  in  precisely  the  same  condition  in  which  they  were  when 
Mr.  Murphy  made  that  recount? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  do  not  think  there  is  such  evidence  as  to 
that  county.  That  is  only  one  of  the  eight  counties  involved. 

Mr.  LACEY.  Then  we  can  safely  see  whether  Mr.  Murphy  is 
right  as  to  that  county  by  counting  the  ballots,  can  we  not? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  can  or  not. 

Mr.  LACEY.  Let  us  try  it. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  There  are  eight  counties  in  this  district.  In 
one  of  the  counties,  Calhoun,  as  I  said  at  the  beginning — the  one 
in  which  Rinaker  gave  notice  to  first  take  testimony — the  evidence 
shows  that  in  two  of  the  townships  the  ballots  had  apparently 
been  tampered  with  after  they  left  the  hands  of  the  election 
judges.  That  county,  on  the  night  of  the  election,  Rinaker  was 
publicly  declared  to  have  carried  by  26  majority.  Forty-eight 
hours  afterwards,  when  it  was  found  how  many  votes  were  neces¬ 
sary  to  elect  Downing  over  Rinaker,  the  result  as  before  an¬ 
nounced  was  changed  so  as  to  give  Downing  enough  votes  to  give 
him  the  district  by  40  majority. 

Mr.  HALL.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  a  question? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HALL.  If  you  have  in  your  possession  all  this  evidence  of 
fraud,  why  did  you  not  testify  before  the  committee  instead  of 
testifying  before  the  House? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Are  you  through?  Is  that  all  of  it?  One  v 

attorney  in  this  case,  Rinaker,  the  son  of  General  Rinaker,  has 
testified;  and  he  has  been  ina  most  discourteous  manner  criticised 
by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  for  presuming  to  tell  the 
truth  in  this  case.  Now,  if  a  man  who  was  simply  a  lawyer  in  the 
case,  volunteering  to  testify,  is  subject  to  animadversion  on  this 
floor,  how  much  more  would  a  juror  who  is  to  try  the  case  be  sub¬ 
ject  to  animadversion  for  volunteering  to  testify  and  seeking  to 
influence  the  report  of  the  committee  of  this  House?  My  testi¬ 
mony  was  not  lost  by  keeping  my  mouth  shut  before  the  commit- 
2400 


17 


tee,  because  I  knew  I  should  have  a  chance  to  give  it  before  the 
full  jury  having  the  final  right  to  try  this  case.  Does  the  gentle¬ 
man  understand  my  position  now? 

Mr.  HALL.  I  understand  your  position,  of  course. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Well,  I  am  glad  of  it. 

Now,  sir,  this  claim  of  a  desire  to  count  these  votes  is  not  honest. 
It  is  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  scheme  that  was  com¬ 
menced  by  an  injunction  to  keep  this  man  in  his  seat  and  make 
the  people  of  this  country  pay  double  salaries  for  that  district 
during  the  whole  length  of  this  Fifty-fourth  Congress;  because, 
suppose  the  scheme  that  this  committee  now  x^roposes  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  injunction  project  should  carry — suxrpose  that  this 
case  is  recommitted  and  the  committee  ordered  to  take  further 
testimony  and  to  examine  the  ballots — when  can  they  report? 
After  the  holidays  next  winter.  Then,  with  all  the  delays  that 
may  be  proposed,  when  will  it  be  possible  to  get  a  vote  of  the 
House,  even  though  the  recount  should  show  Rinaker  elected  by 
a  thousand  majority?  Would  it  be  possible  to  get  a  vote  and 
unseat  this  man — to  unhorse  these  schemers — much  before  the  3d 
day  of  March,  1897?  And  is  not  this  allowing  them  to  carry  out 
their  scheme?  Is  it  not  giving  it  the  indorsement  of  this  House 
to  permit  that  sort  of  thing? 

Gentlemen  concede  the  law  is  well  settled  that  where  one  sup¬ 
presses  the  primary  evidence  the  party  who  desires  to  make  use 
of  the  proof  shall  have  the  right  to  introduce  secondary  evidence. 
We  all  agree  about  that  rule  of  law.  But  gentlemen  say,  in  the 
first  place,  Downing  did  not  suppress  the  primary  evidence.  I 
have  said  as  much  as  I  think  is  necessary  to  be  said  to  show  that 
he  has  most  effectually  suppressed  the  primary  evidence — namely, 
the  ballots. 

Secondly,  gentlemen  say  conceding  that  he  did  suppress  the 
primary  evidence,  and  that  the  contestant  has  the  right  there¬ 
fore  to  introduce  secondary  evidence,  yet  they  do  not  seem  willing 
to  depend  on  the  secondary  evidence  that  he  has  introduced;  they 
claim  that  it  was  a  private  recount;  and  the  gentleman  from  Massa¬ 
chusetts  cited  the  case  of  English  vs.  Peelle  to  show  that  this  House 
had  held  that  a  private  count  of  that  kind  could  not  be  depended 
upon — would  not  be  accepted  as  evidence.  The  gentleman  from 
Iowa  [Mr.  Hepburn]  has  shown  wherein  that  case  differed  from 
this.  It  differed  because  the  witness  produced  to  give  the  second¬ 
ary  evidence  was  an  unreliable  and  unsafe  source  to  which  to  look 
for  truth;  the  House  could  not  believe  him.  Secondly,  in  addition 
to  that,  there  had  been  no  suppression  of  the  primary  evidence  by 
the  party  against  whom  it  was  sought  to  use  the  secondary  evi- 
-j  dence;  so  that  under  no  principle  of  law  could  he  have  been  en¬ 

titled  to  the  use  of  that  secondary  evidence. 

Mr.  TERRY.  Will  the  gentleman  answer  a  question? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Yes,  sir;  if  I  can  hear  it. 

Mr.  TERRY.  The  gentleman  has  referred  to  the  case  of  Stew- 
)  ard  vs.  Childs. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

Mr.  TERRY.  I  thought  you  referred  a  while  ago  to  that  case. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  TERRY.  Well,  while  I  am  on  my  feet  let  me  ask  you  in 
regard  to  that - 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  That  case  is  not  now  in  the  line  of  discus¬ 
sion  I  am  pursuing,  and  I  do  not  care  to  be  drawn  away  from  that 

line, 

2400 — 2 


hr 


18 


Mr.  TERRY.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  is  going  to  take 
up  the  question  of  the  assisted  voters? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Indeed,  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  I  shall 
take  up;  hut  I  do  not  suppose  that  I  will  discuss  every  possible  . 

question  that  anybody  may  raise  in  connection  with  the  case.  I 
am  confining  myself  to  what  I  regard  as  the  essential  features. 

Mr.  TERRY.  Inasmuch  as  that  is  your  State,  I  would  like  to 
Rave  your  views  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Well.  I  will  give  you  my  views  privately,  if 
you  want  them;  but  I  do  not  want  to  burden  the  House  with  my 
opinions. 

Mr.  TERRY.  Your  private  views  are  not  what  I  want.  I 
want  the  House  to  have  the  benefit  of  your  views  upon  the  ques¬ 
tion,  as  this  is  a  matter  arising  in  your  own  State. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  do  not  think  that  on  that  proposition  my 
views  or  the  views  of  anybody  else  are  of  very  much  account. 

There  is  one  pivotal  point  connected  with  the  case,  and  I  wish  to 
keep  as  near  to  that  as  possible  and  not  go  off  into  the  clouds. 

Mr.  TERRY.  I  would  like  the  gentleman  to  explain  whether 
it  is  true  that  unless  Mr.  Rinaker  has  the  benefit  of  all  of  the  as¬ 
sisted  voters  he  could  not  be  considered  as  elected. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  have  not  reached  that  point,  although  I 
will  say  to  the  gentleman  that  I  propose  to  refer  to  it  later  on. 

It  has  been  contended  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  in  this  discussion  by 
gentlemen  that  a  man  who  gives  substantial  testimony  as  to  the 
count  of  the  ballots  in  Macoupin  County,  that  he  did  not  have  an 
opportunity  to  make  a  count  that  was  worthy  of  consideration; 
that  it  was  not  an  accurate  count,  and  that  they  did  not  think  it 
was  good  for  any  purpose.  Who  knows  best?  Is  it  not  more 
reasonable  to  believe  the  man  who  testifies  and  says  that  he  did 
have  an  opportunity,  the  man  who  for  three  days  sat  there  inten¬ 
tionally  observing  every  vote,  and  as  he  says,  with  a  full  opportu¬ 
nity  to  make  the  count?  And  yet  gentlemen  of  the  House  come 
to  us  and  say,  “  We  do  not  believe  him.’’  Why  do  you  not  believe 
him?  He  is  an  honorable  man;  the  record  shows  that.  He  was 
a  man  who  was  honored  by  the  people  who  knew  him  with  nu¬ 
merous  public  offices;  he  was  sheriff  of  the  county,  mayor  of  the 
city  in  which  he  lived,  a  reputable  and  an  honorable  man;  and  I 
may  say  that  General  Rinaker,  from  what  I  know  of  him,  would 
employ  no  other  instrument  for  any  purpose;  that  he  would  em¬ 
ploy  no  man  who  was  not  as  clean  as  a  hound's  tooth  to  do  work 
of  that  kind  for  him.  He  is  that  kind  of  a  man. 

Mr.  Murphy  is  shown  by  the  records  to  be  worthy  of  consider¬ 
ation;  and  nobody  attacks  the  evidence;  and  the  minority  of  the 
committee  concede  in  the  report  the  fact  that  Murphy  for  accuracy, 
reliability,  and  intelligence,  is  beyond  all  question  or  cavil.  Now, 
there  he  is,  as  truthful  a  man  as  any  man  in  this  House;  he  sat 
there  three  days,  and  kept  a  careful  tally  on  this  count.  It  was 
not  expected  at  that  time  that  this  evidence  would  ever  be  re¬ 
quired.  True,  Mr.  Rinaker  was  contemplating  the  contest.  He 
had  given  notice,  but  had  received  no  answer,  but  for  the  purpose  y1 

of  satisfying  himself,  without  the  slightest  thought  of  ever  being 
able  to  use  Mr.  Murphy’s  investigation,  he  had  Murphy  do  this 
thing  and  see  how  it  was  running.  He  found,  as  the  testimony 
shows,  these  various  mistakes.  Was  there  crime  in  that?  Why, 

Mr.  Waggoner,  the  county  clerk,  near  whom  Mr.  Murphy  sat  while 
the  count  was  going  on,  said  that  it  was  a  well-known  fact  that 
he  was  keeping  the  count.  He  said.  ”  We  all  talked  about  it  in 

2400 


19 


the  room  and  here  is  the  reply  that  this  county  clerk  (Mr.  Wag¬ 
goner),  who  was  opening  the  ballots,  spreading  them  out,  calling 
\  off  the  votes,  passing  them  on  to  the  next  member  of  the  count¬ 

ing  committee,  and  so  on.  He  was  examined  under  oath  and 
corroborated  what  Mr.  Murphy  had  said.  This  was  the  question 
that  was  propounded  to  him,  and  I  ask  your  attention  to  his  an¬ 
swer: 

Q.  How  did  you  come  to  pay  such  close  attention  to  the  vote  of  General 
Rinaker  for  Congress? 

A.  I  suppose  for  the  same  reason  everyone  in  the  room  paid  attention  to  it. 
There  was  a  good  deal  of  talk  about  this  matter  then,  and  there  were  parties 
standing  near  me  watching  the  vote,  and,  as  I  called  the  vote,  I  naturally 
looked  for  that  vote  part  of  the  time. 

There  is  the  testimony  of  the  county  clerk  (in  addition  to  the 
testimony  of  Murphy)  that  he  himself  and  all  the  others  in  the 
room  knew  that  the  count  was  being  kept.  Nobody  questions 
it,  and  nobody  comes  to  say  that  Murphy’s  count  could  not  be 
depended  upon;  at  least  that  he  was  not  honest  in  making  it. 

Now,  I  want  to  say  here,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  very  best  cor¬ 
roboration  of  the  truth  of  Mr.  Murphy's  count  is  furnished  by 
the  contestee  [Mr.  Downing].  How?  After  the  forty  days  in 
which  Mr.  Rinaker  had  to  take  his  testimony  had  expired,  Mr. 
Downing  knew  what  Mr.  Murphy  had  testified  to.  Downing  was 
present  and  heard  Murphy's  testimony  about  what  the  recount  in 
his  presence  showed.  Now,  if  that  count  is  unreliable,  if  it  could 
not  be  depended  upon,  there  were  the  ballots  in  the  county  clerk's 
office,  and  all  that  Mr.  Downing  had  to  do  to  contradict  Murphy 
was  to  dismiss  his  injunction,  notify  the  county  clerk  to  produce 
the  ballots  with  his  subpoena  duces  tecum,  and  count  the  ballots 
there  in  the  presence  of  himself  and  Mr.  Rinaker.  He  could  do 
it,  but  Mr.  Rinaker  could  not.  He  could  dismiss  the  injunction 
suit  and  call  for  the  ballots  and  contradict  Mr.  Murphy  if  he  de¬ 
sired  to  do  so. 

Mr.  MOODY.  Will  the  gentleman  permit  an  interruption  just 
there? 

M».‘  CONNOLLY.  Certainly. 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  is  not  aware  of 
the  fact  that  in  the  only  other  contested  election  case  under  that 
statute,  even  without  an  injunction,  the  clerks  of  some  of  the 
counties  in  the  State  of  Illinois  declined  to  produce  the  ballots? 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  I  wish  to  say  to  the  gentleman  right  there  that 
in  the  case  the  gentleman  referred  to,  in  every  county  except  the 
county  of  Will,  the  clerks  produced  the  ballots  and  they  were 
counted:  and  in  that  case  no  sx)ecial  point  was  made  upon  it,  but 
the  contestee  in  that  case  took  the  precise  position  that  my  col- 
league  takes  to-day. 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  do  not  know  what  position  he  took,  but  I  know 
the  ballot  boxes  were  not  all  produced,  and  some  of  the  clerks  at 
least  proceeded  on  the  ground  that  the  law  did  not  authorize  it. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  No  point  was  made  on  it  because  it  was  not 
l  decisive  in  the  case. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Now.  I  hope  my  friends  will  let  me  go 
ahead  and  get  through.  What  has  that  to  do  here?  Why  is  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  sitting  on  nettles  so  much  and  so 
badly  when  I  am  suggesting  this  mode  of  contradicting  Murphy’s 
testimony? 

Mr.  MOODY.  Iam  not.  I  submitted  to  interruptions  from  the 
gentleman  yesterday,  and  I  have  not  interrupted  him  unduly  to¬ 
day. 


2400 


20 


Mr.  CONNOLLY.  The  gentleman  sought  yesterday  to  insist 
that  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Murphy  was  unreliable,  and  that  this 
House  could  not  depend  on  it.  If  that  is  true,  did  not  Mr.  Down¬ 
ing  know  that  after  Mr.  Rinaker’s  forty  days  had  expired,  and  ( 

after  Murphy’s  testimony  had  been  seen  and  read  by  Downing? 

If  that  was  true,  you  Imow,  gentlemen,  every  one  of  3rou.  and  it 
is  conceded  in  this  debate,  that  Downing  had  the  right  then,  hav¬ 
ing  commenced  the  injunction  suit,  to  dismiss  the  injunction  suit, 
serve  on  Mr.  Oeltgen.  the  county  clerk,  a  subpoena  duces  tecum 
to  bring  forward  those  ballots,  and  he  himself  could  have  counted 
the  ballots  and  proved  the  unreliability  and  unworthiness  of 
Murphy’s  count.  He  did  not  do  it.  He  never  proposed  to  do  it 
before  this  committee. 

Mr.  MOOD  Y.  If  the  gentleman  will  permit  me  to  correct  him, 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  brief  submitted  to  the  committee  at  the  meet¬ 
ing  of  Congress.  In  that  brief  the  contestee  says  this: 

Believing  that  if  a  recount  is  ordered  the  ballots  and  his  rights  under  the 
law  will  he  fully  protected,  he  is  willing  that  a  recount  be  had,  and  in  any 
assistance  he  can  render  in  person  or  by  and  through  his  attorney  and  coun¬ 
sel  he  is  at  the  call  and  service  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  And  his  attorney  stated  before  the  commit¬ 
tee,  in  arguing  the  case,  that  the  ballots  now  were  not  worth  the 
paper  that  they  were  written  on  as  evidence. 

Mr.  MOODY.  He  did  not  so  state. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  have  been  informed  by  members  of  the 
committee  that  he  did. 

Mr.  HOPKINS.  Why  did  he  not  come  in  with  a  resolution  in 
the  House  on  the  first  day  of  the  session,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do, 
and  ask  for  a  recount?  Mr.  Rinaker  was  an  outsider  and  he  could 
not  do  it,  but  your  friend  was  a  member  of  the  House  and  could 
do  so. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  As  to  the  matter  of  a  recount,  this  House 
this  winter  has  had  an  example  of  it.  A  sitting  member,  Mr. 

Tarsney.  from  Missouri,  with  a  contest  pending,  desired  a  recount 
of  the  ballots,  and  in  the  first  or  second  week  of  this  session  he 
manfully  came  into  the  House  and  on  the  floor  of  the  House  offered 
a  resolution  authorizing  the  Committee  on  Elections  to  go  to  Kan¬ 
sas  City  and  recount  the  ballots,  but  this  House  refused  to  do  it. 

At  the  very  same  time  Mr.  Tarsney  was  thus  manfully  proposing 
to  do  that  Mr.  Downing  sat  behind  him  quietly  in  his  seat,  never 
proposing  to  do  the  manly  thing  that  Tarsney  was  proposing  to 
do.  No;  he  sat  behind  the  bulwark  of  an  injunction  that  had  thus 
far  protected  him,  and  he  proposed  to  stay  under  cover  of  that  in¬ 
junction  just  as  long  as  he  could;  and  when  smoked  out  then  to 
have  his  friends  come  here,  begging  of  the  House  to  let  him  go 
back  and  do  what  he  might  have  allowed  to  be  done  if  he  had  been 
open  and  fair  about  it  or  his  advisers  honest,  to  get  at  the  truth, 
more  than  a  year  ago — what  he  might  himself  have  done  after  Mr. 

Murphy  and  Mr.  Waggoner  had  testified  as  to  what  the  ballots 
showed. 

Tell  me,  then,  you  gentlemen  who  come  here  and  say  that  Mr.  y 

Murphy  can  not  be  believed,  why  did  not  Mr.  Downing  say  that? 

Why  did  not  Mr.  Downing  contradict  him?  Why  did  he  not 
produce  the  ballots,  as  he  might  do,  that  would  have  contradicted 
him? 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  gone  thus  far  on  that  feature  of  the 
case  concerning  this  miserable  injunction,  this  scheme  to  set  up 
the  law  of  the  State  of  Illinois  against  the  law  of  Congress. 

Thank  God,  no  Republican  of  the  State  of  Illinois  so  far  forgets 

2400 


21 


her  position  here  on  this  question  as  for  one  moment  to  say  that 
the  law  was  intended  to  nullify  a  Federal  statute,  or  to  impede 
its  operation.  It  was  done  by  a  Democratic  judge  in  the  interest 
of  a  Democratic  contestee,  to  keep  him  in  Congress  in  his  seat  as 
long  as  possible. 

Now.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  turn  to  another  feature  of  this  case  briefly. 
The  House  has  so  kindly  listened  to  me  for  so  long  that  I  will  be 
as  brief  as  possible,  and  will  not  seek  to  do  full  justice  to  this 
branch  of  the  subject. 

The  minority  of  this  committee  say  in  their  report: 

While  we  do  not  agree  in  all  respects  with  the  conclusions  arrived  at  by 
the  majority  upon  this  branch  of  the  case — 

That  is,  about  illegal  marks  of  ballots,  illegal  votes,  and  so 
forth — 

yet,  for  the  purpose  of  simplifying  the  issue  between  the  majority  and  minor¬ 
ity,  we  accept  their  conclusion. 

So  that  as  to  all  questions  of  illegal  votes  and  matters  of  that 
kind  the  majority  and  minority  have  agreed. 

In  determining  that  the  contestant  should  be  seated  by  a  plurality  of  30 
votes,  the  majority  of  the  committee  have  adopted  two  conclusions  from  which 
we  dissent: 

First.  They  have  allowed  a  gain  of  39  votes  to  the  contestant  on  account  of 
a  private  and  unofficial  recount  of  the  ballots  in  parts  of  the  two  counties  of 
Macoupin  and  Cass. 

Second.  They  have  permitted  the  parties  to  retain  certain  votes  which  were 
counted  for  them  by  the  returning  officers.  These  votes  were  those  of  illit¬ 
erate  voters  whose  ballots  were  prepared  by  the  officers  of  election  without 
the  voters  first  having  made  the  oath  required  by  law  that  they  were  unable 
to  mark  their  ballots  by  reason  of  their  physical  disability  or  inability  to  read 
the  English  language.  This  ruling  benefits  the  contestant  to  the  extent  of  32 
votes  net. 

If  either  of  these  disputed  conclusions  be  incorrect,  then  the  report  of  the 
ma j  ority  of  30  shall  fail. 

Now,  there  were  39  votes  that  he  received  on  a  miscount  in 
Macoupin  and  Cass  counties,  which  the  majority  of  the  commit¬ 
tee  think  Rinaker  is  entitled  to  credit  for.  So  that  39  votes,  all 
but  one,  wipes  out  ftie  declared  majority  for  Downing. 

Now,  then,  we  come  to  the  other  question.  The  minority  say 
there  were  32  votes  allowed  to  Rinaker  that  there  is  no  question 
were  honestly  cast  by  honest  voters,  by  men  entitled  to  vote,  just 
as  the  ballots  were  counted,  and  by  men  who  were  legal  voters. 
Now.  these  gentlemen  who  are  so  anxious  to  have  the  legal  voters 
of  that  district  not  disfranchised,  remember  the  minority  of  this 
committee  say  to  you,  We  believe  that  these  32  voters  shall  not  be 
counted,  some  of  whom  were  blind,  some  of  whom  were  in  invalid 
chairs  and  could  not  walk  into  the  polling  x>lace.  all  of  whom  were 
legal  voters — one  of  them  old  Professor  Turner,  of  Jacksonville, 
known  to  all  college  presidents  and  educators  from  the  Atlantic 
)  to  the  Pacific,  one  of  the  leading  educators  of  the  country  for  the 

past  fifty  years,  a  man  notable  among  the  best  minds  in  the  United 
States,  blind  and  old,  who  has  been  living  in  Jacksonville  for  fifty 
years,  led  by  a  daughter  up  to  the  polling  place;  but  blind  as  he 
is,  and  heavy  as  the  burden  of  years  rests  upon  him,  did  not  fail 
in  the  performance  of  the  last  great  duty  of  the  citizen  to  go  and 
do  his  duty  by  voting  his  sentiment  at  tiie  polls. 

Professor  Turner,  led  there  by  a  daughter  and  confronted  by 
these  judges,  who  have  known  him  since  their  childhood,  who 
knew  of  the  blindness  that  is  on  him — the  minority  of  this  com¬ 
mittee  say  that  the  two  judges,  one  a  Democrat  and  one  a  Repub¬ 
lican,  who  went  into  the  bootli  with  him  and  prepared  his  ticket 
•  as  they  both  knew  he  wanted  it,  and  then  marked  it  and  deposited 

in  the  box — that  those  judges  did  an  unlawful  thing,  and  that 
2400 


oo 

uu 


Professor  Turner,  rounding  out  his  century  of  existence,  shall, 
for  the  first  time  in  his  life,  be  disfranchised  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  this  Republic  for  which  he  has  done  so  much. 
Shame  upon  any  committee  who  would  insist  upon  any  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  law  that  would  disfranchise  a  man  of  that  kind! 

Another  was  a  crippled  old  soldier,  disabled  in  his  country’s 
service.  They  would  disfranchise  him  and  not  count  his  ballot 
because,  forsooth,  he  is  forced  to  spend  his  life  in  an  invalid  chair, 
and,  wheeled  by  loving  hands  up  to  the  ballot  box,  he  cast  his  vote 
as  he  pointed  his  gun.  [Loud  applause.]  Disfranchise  him !  Dis¬ 
franchise  him  for  what?  F  or  the  sake  of  seating  the  editor  of  a 
Democratic  newspaper  as  a  Representative  in  this  House.  [Ap¬ 
plause  on  the  Republican  side.]  My  God!  where  is  the  old-time 
Republican  pride?  Gone!  Crawling  on  your  bellies  to  men  who 
will  criticise  you  no  difference  how  you  vote!  You  had  better 
stand  up  like  men  and  vote  for  the  principle  that  you  believe  in, 
and  give  the  voter,  the  lawful  voter,  the  right  to  cast  his  vote 
once  and  have  that  one  vote  honestly  counted. 

Now,  sir.  these  gentlemen  say  to  me — two  or  three  members  on 
this  side  have  said  to  me — in  private  conversation,  “  Why.  you  can 
not  count  these  ballots  for  the  blind  and  the  illiterate,  because 
your  law  says  that  they  shall  not  be  counted  unless  they  make  an 
oath  that  they  are  blind  and  illiterate.”  I  said  to  each  of  those 
gentlemen,  “  Oh,  no:  our  law  does  no  such  thing.”  Now,  the  gen¬ 
tleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Brumm]  — I  have  him  in  mind — 
asked  a  question  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Cooke  of  Illinois]  yester¬ 
day:  “  Does  not  your  Illinois  law  say  that  a  man  whose  vote  is 
received  after  it  is  prepared  by  the  judges,  a  man  who  is  blind  or 
illiterate,  and  his  ballot  is  prepared  by  them,  has  to  make  oath 
to  illiteracy  and  blindness  or  that  vote  shall  not  be  counted?”  I 
interposed  and  said,  “No;  our  statute  does  not.” 

Now,  I  want  to  show  all  gentlemen  who  will  give  attention  to  it 
that  our  statute  does  not.  and  that  our  statute  differs  materially 
from  the  Kentucky  statute,  respecting  which  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Moody]  read  the  decision.  Now,  mark  you, 
the  evidence  in  this  case,  unlike  the  Michigan  case,  unlike  the 
Kentucky  case,  unlike  any  case  these  gentlemen  have  cited — the 
evidence  in  this  case  shows  that  all  of  these  assisted  voters  were 
lawfully  entitled  to  vote,  either  that  they  were  blind,  that  they 
could  not  read  or  write,  or  that  they  were  otherwise  disabled. 

Mr.  TERRY.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  would  rather  not,  for  I  am  taking  too 
much  time. 

Mr.  MOODY.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  yield  long 
enough  to  see  if  we  can  not  fix  a  time  for  taking  the  vote? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  shall  get  through  in  a  few  minutes. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  here  is  the  law  of  Illinois  which  this  minority 
say  compels  the  voter  who  is  unable  to  prepare  his  ballot  to  make 
the  oath  before  he  has  the  right  to  vote.  Let  me  say  before  I  read 
it  that  the  legislature  of  Illinois  could  not  prevent  a  man  from 
voting  by  any  law  it  might  make  if  he  was,  under  the  constitution 
of  the  State,  a  voter.  The  State  constitution  secures  to  him  the 
right  to  vote.  The  legislature  may  prescribe  the  machinery  by 
which  the  vote  shall  be  taken,  but  the  right  to  vote  is  inherent  in 
the  voter  himself  by  the  constitution.  In  the  election  machinery 
provided  by  the  State  the  legislature  makes  provision  for  the  blind 
and  the  illiterate  or  otherwise  disabled  voters.  It  provides  a  mode 
by  which  such  a  voter  may  compel  the  election  judges  to  recog¬ 
nize  his  constitutional  right  and  accept  his  vote.  It  is  a  section 
2400 


23 


of  the  law  that  does  not  pretend  to  confer  a  right  or  to  impose  a 
duty  upon  the  voter,  but  which  imposes  a  duty  upon  the  election 
inspectors.  What  duty?  Why,  the  duty  of  preparing  for  such  a 
voter  his  ballot  if  he  makes  the  oath.  He  is  not  required,  how¬ 
ever,  to  even  make  the  oath.  Let  me  read  the  law,  and  I  will  try 
to  read  it  so  that  gentlemen  can  catch  the  point: 

When  any  elector  shall  make  oath  that  he  can  not  read  English,  or  that, 
because  of  physical  disability,  he  can  not  cast  his  ballot,  or  when  such  disa¬ 
bility  shall  be  'made  manifest  to  said  inspectors - 

Applause.] 

Mr.  MOODY.  Is  the  gentleman  reading  from  the  Illinois  stat¬ 
ute? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  am  reading  from  the  Illinois  statute. 

Mr.  MOODY.  Is  the  gentleman  quite  sure? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Quite  sure.  4k 

Mr.  BRUMM.  I  was  going  to  say  that  if  the  gentleumn  was 
reading  from  the  Illinois  statute,  it  is  different  from  what  is 
found  in  the  minority  report  as  that  statute. 

Mr.  MOODY.  The  gentleman  from  Illinois  is  certainly  mis¬ 
taken  as  to  the  statute. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Well,  I  will  read  it  now  from  the  statute 
book.  I  took  it  for  granted  that  you  had  copied  it  correctly  in 
your  report.  I  have  been  reading  it  from  the  minority  report, 
taking  for  granted  that  they  had  copied  it  correctly. 

Mr.  MOODY.  The  gentleman  has  been  reading  the  statute  of 
another  State. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Very  well.  I  was  depending  on  you.  I 
confess  I  ought  not  to  have  done  it,  but  I  did. 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  suggest  to  the  gentleman  that  if  he  has  only 
just  now  found  out  the  statute  of  his  State  he  can  not  very  well 
instruct  the  House  about  it.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Oh,  I  am  not  seeking  to  instruct.  That  is 
within  the  province  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  entirely. 


hter.]  I  read  now  from  the  statutes  of  Illinois.  I  will  not 


depend  upon  your  minority  report  any  further. 

Any  voter  who  may  declare  upon  oath — 

Not  that  he  must,  but  that  he  may — 

Any  voter  who  may  declare  upon  oath  that  he  can  not  read  the  English 
language,  or  that  by  reason  of  any  physical  disability  he  is  unable  to  mark 
his  ballot,  shall,  upon  request,  be  assisted  in  marking  his  ballot  by  two  of  the 
election  officers  of  different  political  parties,  to  be  selected  from  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  the  precinct  in  which  they  are  to  act,  to  be  designated  by  the 
judges  of  election  of  each  precinct  at  the  opening  of  the  poll.  Said  officers 
shall  mark  the  ballot  as  directed  by  the  voter  and  shall  thereafter  give  no 
information  regarding  the  same. 

Mr.  BRUMM.  So  you  were  evidently  wrong  when  you  read 
the  statute  awhile  ago. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  No,  sir;  I  was  not  wrong. 

Mr.  MOODY.  Why,  the  gentleman  was  wrong.  He  was  read¬ 
ing  from  the  statute  of  another  State. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  My  dear  sir,  the  wrong,  I  confess,  was  in 
depending  on  your  report  for  the  law  of  Illinois. 

Mr.  BRLTMM.  What  you  have  read  now  is  entirely  different 
from  what  you  read  a  while  ago. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  have  read  the  facts.  Does  the  gentleman 
understand? 

Mr.  BRUMM.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  want  to  know  whether  this  does 


not  differ  from  what  you  read  awhile  ago. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  do  not  yield  any  further;  I  can  not. 


2400 


3  0112  061893357 


24 

Mr.  BRTJMM.  Then  you  refuse  to  answer  my  question? 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  Why,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  do  you 
want  an  answer  when  you  say  you  understand  now? 

Mr.  BRUMM.  Your  present  statement  differs  from  your  for¬ 
mer  statement. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  I  made  no  statement.  I  read  the  law. 

Now,  gentlemen  will  see  this  statute  imposes  no  new  duty  upon 
the  voter.  A  man  who  can  not  see  has  under  the  constitution  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  a  right  to  vote  just  as  much  as  the  man  who 
can  see.  The  legislature  would  not  undertake  to  say  that  a  man 
who  can  not  see  shall  not  vote  unless  he  does  a  particular  thing 
in  the  way  of  taking  an  oath  that  nobody  else  is  required  to  take, 
becau^  a  law  of  that  kind  would  be  unconstitutional  under  a  con- 
stitutAi  which  says  that  every  man  of  21  years  of  age,  resident 
in  theatate  twelve  months,  shall  be  a  legal  voter  and  entitled  to 
have  his  vote  counted. 

Now,  if  the  legislature  had  said  that  men  21  years  of  age  who 
have  lived  in  the  State  a  year  and  who  are  blind  or  lame  or  illiter¬ 
ate  shall  not  vote  unless  they  make  a  preliminary  oath,  while 
other  men  may  vote  without  the  preliminary  oath,  do  you  not 
see  that  there  would  be  a  test  placed  upon  the  blind  voter  or  the 
lame  voter  or  the  illiterate  voter  which  would  exclude  him  from 
his  constitutional  right  to  cast  his  ballet?  All  that  this  section 
does  is  to  impose  a  burden,  a  new  duty,  upon  the  judges  of  elec¬ 
tion  with  reference  to  the  blind  man  T>r_t.he  illiterate  man  differ¬ 
ent  from  the  duty  which  the  statute  impoeea  with  reference  to 
men  who  can  read  and  write  or  who  can  see.  The  statute  pro¬ 
vides  that  if  such  a  man  makes  an  oath  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
two  of  these  inspectors  to  prepare  his  ballot  for  him  in  the  booth. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  The  time  of  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois  has  expired. 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  rise  to  a  parliamentary  inquiry. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore  (Mr.  Sherman).  The  gentleman 
will  state  it. 

Mr.  MOODY.  How  much  time  has  the  gentleman  from  Illinois 
now  on  the  floor  occupied? 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  One  hour  and  fifty-six  minutes. 
The  Chair  assumed  that  the  gentleman  was  entitled  to  only  one 
hour,  but  did  not  call  him  down  at  the  end  of  that  time  because - 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  How  can  I  be  taken  off  the  floor  by  an 
inquiry  as  to  how  much  time  I  have  occupied? 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu¬ 
setts  addressed  to  the  Chair  a  parliamentary  inquiry,  which  was 
entirely  proper,  and  the  occupant  of  the  chair  was  attempting  to 
answer  it. 

Mr.  CONNOLLY.  The  question  has  been  answered — one  hour 
and  fifty-six  minutes;  and  that  ends  the  matter,  I  presume. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  It  does  not  end  it,  if  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Massachusetts  makes  the  point  of  order - 

Mr.  MOODY.  I  make  the  point  of  order  that  we  on  this  side 
are  now  entitled  to  the  floor. 

The  SPEAKER  pro  tempore.  If  the  gentleman  makes  the 
point  of  order  that  the  time  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  has 
expired,  the  Chair  will  so  hold.  He  was  about  to  state  why  he  sb 
held;  but  if  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  does  not  care  to  hear  the 
reason  he  need  not.  The  Chair  holds  that  the  gentleman’s  time 
has  expired. 


C 


